HTR Brookfield Total Return Fund Inc. (The)

FORM N-CSR

Save time. Save paper. View your next shareholder report online as soon as it’s available. Log into www.dreyfus.com and sign up for Dreyfus eCommunications. It’s simple and only takes a few minutes.

The views expressed in this report reflect those of the portfolio manager only through the end of the period covered and do not necessarily represent the views of Dreyfus or any other person in the Dreyfus organization. Any such views are subject to change at any time based upon market or other conditions and Dreyfus disclaims any responsibility to update such views.These views may not be relied on as investment advice and, because investment decisions for a Dreyfus fund are based on numerous factors, may not be relied on as an indication of trading intent on behalf of any Dreyfus fund.

Dreyfus 100% U.S. Treasury
Money Market Fund

The Fund

A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT

Dear Shareholder:

We are pleased to present this semiannual report for Dreyfus 100% U.S. Treasury Money Market Fund, covering the six-month period from January 1, 2013, through June 30, 2013. For information about how the fund performed during the reporting period, as well as general market perspectives, we provide a Discussion of Fund Performance on the pages that follow.

After more than 30 years of declining interest rates, it appears that the secular down-trend may be over. Improvements in U.S. housing and labor markets so far in 2013 prompted the Federal Reserve Board (the “Fed”) to signal its intent to back away from its quantitative easing program later this year, a development that sparked heightened bond market volatility and rising bond yields during the second quarter.

These developments suggest to us that a new phase of the economic cycle is about to begin.The U.S. economic recovery appears poised to accelerate later this year in advance of a multi-year expansion. Stronger economic growth and the Fed’s widely anticipated shift to a more moderately stimulative monetary policy stance are likely to presage a gradual, upward drift in longer term interest rates as the relationship between rates and economic conditions normalizes. However, a tapering off of quantitative easing does not necessarily herald imminent increases in short-term interest rates, and we continue to expect any short-term interest-rate hikes to be postponed until 2015.As always, we urge you to discuss our observations with your financial adviser.

Thank you for your continued confidence and support.

Sincerely,

J. Charles Cardona
President
The Dreyfus Corporation
July 15, 2013

2

STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES

June 30, 2013 (Unaudited)

8

STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN NET ASSETS

10

FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS

The following table describes the performance for the fiscal periods indicated. Total return shows how much your investment in the fund would have increased (or decreased) during each period, assuming you had reinvested all dividends and distributions.These figures have been derived from the fund’s financial statements.

See notes to financial statements.

The Fund 11

(a) Portfolio valuation: Investments in securities are valued at amortized cost in accordance with Rule 2a-7 under the Act. If amortized cost is determined not to approximate market value, the fair value of the portfolio securities will be determined by procedures established by and under the general supervision of the fund’s Board of Trustees (the “Board”).

The fair value of a financial instrument is the amount that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date (i.e., the exit price). GAAP establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs of valuation techniques used to measure fair value.This hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1 measurements) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3 measurements).

Additionally, GAAP provides guidance on determining whether the volume and activity in a market has decreased significantly and whether such a decrease in activity results in transactions that are not orderly. GAAP requires enhanced disclosures around valuation inputs and techniques used during annual and interim periods.

Various inputs are used in determining the value of the fund’s investments relating to fair value measurements.These inputs are summarized in the three broad levels listed below:

Level 1 —unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments.

Level 2 —other significant observable inputs (including quoted prices for similar investments, interest rates, prepayment speeds, credit risk, etc.).

Level 3 —significant unobservable inputs (including the fund’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments).

The Fund 13

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Unaudited) (continued)

The inputs or methodology used for valuing securities are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in those securities. For example, money market securities are valued using amortized cost, in accordance with rules under the Act. Generally, amortized cost approximates the current fair value of a security, but since the value is not obtained from a quoted price in an active market, such securities are reflected within Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.

The following is a summary of the inputs used as of June 30, 2013 in valuing the fund’s investments:

At June 30, 2013, there were no transfers between Level 1 and Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.

(b) Securities transactions and investment income: Securities transactions are recorded on a trade date basis. Interest income, adjusted for accretion of discount and amortization of premium on investments, is earned from settlement date and is recognized on the accrual basis. Realized gains and losses from securities transactions are recorded on the identified cost basis. Cost of investments represents amortized cost.

(c) Dividends to shareholders: It is the policy of the fund to declare dividends daily from investment income-net. Such dividends are paid monthly. Dividends from net realized capital gains, if any, are normally declared and paid annually, but the fund may make distributions on a more frequent basis to comply with the distribution requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”).To the extent that net realized capital gains can be offset by capital loss carryovers, it is the policy of the fund not to distribute such gains.

14

(d) Federal income taxes: It is the policy of the fund to continue to qualify as a regulated investment company, if such qualification is in the best interests of its shareholders, by complying with the applicable provisions of the Code, and to make distributions of taxable income sufficient to relieve it from substantially all federal income and excise taxes.

As of and during the period ended June 30, 2013, the fund did not have any liabilities for any uncertain tax positions.The fund recognizes interest and penalties, if any, related to uncertain tax positions as income tax expense in the Statement of Operations. During the period, the fund did not incur any interest or penalties.

Each tax year in the three-year period ended December 31, 2012 remains subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service and state taxing authorities.

The tax character of distributions paid to shareholders during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012 was all ordinary income. The tax character of current year distributions will be determined at the end of the current fiscal year.

At June 30, 2013, the cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was substantially the same as the cost for financial reporting purposes (See the Statement of Investments).

NOTE 2—Management Fee and Other Transactions With Affiliates:

(a) Pursuant to a management agreement with the Manager, the management fee is computed at the annual rate of .50% of the value of the fund’s average daily net assets and is payable monthly.

The Manager has undertaken to waive receipt of the management fee and/or reimburse operating expenses in order to facilitate a daily yield at or above a certain level which may change from time to time.This undertaking is voluntary and not contractual, and may be terminated

The Fund 15

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Unaudited) (continued)

at any time.The reduction in expenses, pursuant to the undertaking, amounted to $2,281,418 during the period ended June 30, 2013.

(b) Under the Shareholder Services Plan, the fund reimburses the Distributor an amount not to exceed an annual rate of .25% of the value of the fund’s average daily net assets for certain allocated expenses of providing personal services and/or maintaining shareholder accounts. The services provided may include personal services relating to shareholder accounts, such as answering shareholder inquiries regarding the fund and providing reports and other information, and services related to the maintenance of shareholder accounts. During the period ended June 30, 2013, the fund was charged $199,909 pursuant to the Shareholder Services Plan.

The fund has arrangements with the transfer agent and the custodian whereby the fund may receive earnings credits when positive cash balances are maintained, which are used to offset transfer agency and custody fees. For financial reporting purposes, the fund includes net earnings credits as an expense offset in the Statement of Operations.

The fund compensates Dreyfus Transfer, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Manager, under a transfer agency agreement for providing transfer agency services for the fund and cash management services related to fund subscriptions and redemptions. During the period ended June 30, 2013, the fund was charged $76,312 for transfer agency services and $2,956 for cash management services. Cash management fees were partially offset by earnings credits of $423.These fees are included in Shareholder servicing costs in the Statement of Operations.

The fund compensates The Bank of NewYork Mellon, a subsidiary of BNY Mellon and an affiliate of Dreyfus, under a custody agreement for providing custodial services for the fund. During the period ended June 30, 2013, the fund was charged $31,653 pursuant to the custody agreement.These fees were partially offset by earnings credits of $118.

16

The fund compensates The Bank of New York Mellon under a cash management agreement for performing certain cash management services related to fund subscriptions and redemptions.The Bank of New York Mellon also provides shareholder redemption draft processing services. During the period ended June 30, 2013, the fund was charged $1,669 pursuant to the cash management agreement, which is included in Shareholder servicing costs in the Statement of Operations. These fees were partially offset by earnings credits of $2.

During the period ended June 30, 2013, the fund was charged $4,630 for services performed by the Chief Compliance Officer and his staff.

The components of “Due to The Dreyfus Corporation and affiliates” in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities consist of: management fees $257,085, Shareholder Services Plan fees $29,000, custodian fees $15,852, Chief Compliance Officer fees $4,630 and transfer agency fees $23,449, which are offset against an expense reimbursement currently in effect in the amount of $298,799.

(c) Each Board member also serves as a Board member of other funds within the Dreyfus complex. Annual retainer fees and attendance fees are allocated to each fund based on net assets.

The Fund 17

INFORMATION ABOUT THE RENEWAL OF THE
FUND’S MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT (Unaudited)

At a meeting of the fund’s Board of Trustees held on March 4-5, 2013, the Board considered the renewal of the fund’s Management Agreement pursuant to which Dreyfus provides the fund with investment advisory and administrative services (the “Agreement”). The Board members, none of whom are “interested persons” (as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended) of the fund, were assisted in their review by independent legal counsel and met with counsel in executive session separate from Dreyfus representatives. In considering the renewal of the Agreement, the Board considered all factors that it believed to be relevant, including those discussed below.The Board did not identify any one factor as dispositive, and each Board member may have attributed different weights to the factors considered.

Analysis of Nature, Extent, and Quality of Services Provided to the Fund. The Board considered information provided to them at the meeting and in previous presentations from Dreyfus representatives regarding the nature, extent, and quality of the services provided to funds in the Dreyfus fund complex. Dreyfus provided the number of open accounts in the fund, the fund’s asset size and the allocation of fund assets among distribution channels. Dreyfus also had previously provided information regarding the diverse intermediary relationships and distribution channels of funds in the Dreyfus fund complex (such as retail direct or intermediary, in which intermediaries typically are paid by the fund and/or Dreyfus) and Dreyfus’ corresponding need for broad, deep, and diverse resources to be able to provide ongoing shareholder services to each intermediary or distribution channel, as applicable to the fund.

The Board also considered research support available to, and portfolio management capabilities of, the fund’s portfolio management personnel and that Dreyfus also provides oversight of day-to-day fund operations, including fund accounting and administration and assistance in meeting legal and regulatory requirements.The Board also considered Dreyfus’ extensive administrative, accounting, and compliance infrastructures.

18

Comparative Analysis of the Fund’s Performance and Management Fee and Expense Ratio. The Board reviewed reports prepared by Lipper, Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent provider of investment company data, which included information comparing (1) the fund’s performance with the performance of a group of comparable funds (the “Performance Group”) and with a broader group of funds (the “Performance Universe”), all for various periods ended December 31, 2012, and (2) the fund’s actual and contractual management fees and total expenses with those of a group of comparable funds (the “Expense Group”) and with a broader group of funds (the “Expense Universe”), the information for which was derived in part from fund financial statements available to Lipper as of the date of its analysis. Dreyfus previously had furnished the Board with a description of the methodology Lipper used to select the Performance Group and Performance Universe and the Expense Group and Expense Universe.

Dreyfus representatives stated that the usefulness of performance comparisons may be affected by a number of factors, including different investment limitations that may be applicable to the fund and comparison funds. The Board discussed the results of the comparisons and noted that the fund’s total return performance was above, at or below the Performance Group and Performance Universe medians for the various periods, including periods in the first and fourth quartile of the Performance Group and Performance Universe. Dreyfus representatives noted the narrow spreads of the performance results of the funds in the Performance Group, with just one basis point separating the fund’s performance from the median when the fund’s performance was below the Performance Group median.

The Board also reviewed the range of actual and contractual management fees and total expenses of the Expense Group and Expense Universe funds and discussed the results of the comparisons. The Board noted that the fund’s contractual management fee was above the Expense Group median, the fund’s actual management fee was below

The Fund 19

INFORMATION ABOUT THE RENEWAL OF THE FUND’S
MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT (Unaudited) (continued)

the Expense Group and Expense Universe medians and the fund’s total expense ratio was approximately at the Expense Group and Expense Universe medians.

Dreyfus representatives noted that Dreyfus has undertaken to limit the fund’s expenses to maintain the minimum yield floor limit of 0.00%.

Dreyfus representatives reviewed with the Board the management or investment advisory fees paid by funds advised or administered by Dreyfus that are in the same Lipper category as the fund (the “Similar Clients”), and explained the nature of the Similar Clients. They discussed differences in fees paid and the relationship of the fees paid in light of any differences in the services provided and other relevant factors. The Board considered the relevance of the fee information provided for the Similar Clients to evaluate the appropriateness and reasonableness of the fund’s management fee.

Analysis of Profitability and Economies of Scale. Dreyfus representatives reviewed the expenses allocated and profit received by Dreyfus and the resulting profitability percentage for managing the fund and the aggregate profitability percentage to Dreyfus of managing the funds in the Dreyfus fund complex, and the method used to determine the expenses and profit. The Board concluded that the profitability results were not unreasonable, given the services rendered and service levels provided by Dreyfus. The Board also noted the fee waiver and expense reimbursement arrangement and its effect on Dreyfus’ prof-itability.The Board also had been provided with information prepared by an independent consulting firm regarding Dreyfus’ approach to allocating costs to, and determining the profitability of, individual funds and the entire Dreyfus fund complex.The consulting firm also had analyzed where any economies of scale might emerge in connection with the management of a fund.

The Board’s counsel stated that the Board should consider the profitability analysis (1)as part of the evaluation of whether the fees under the Agreement bear a reasonable relationship to the mix of services provided by Dreyfus, including the nature, extent and quality of such services, and (2) in light of the relevant circumstances for the fund and

20

the extent to which economies of scale would be realized if the fund grows and whether fee levels reflect these economies of scale for the benefit of fund shareholders. Dreyfus representatives noted that a discussion of economies of scale is predicated on a fund having achieved a substantial size with increasing assets and that, if a fund’s assets had been stable or decreasing, the possibility that Dreyfus may have realized any economies of scale would be less. Dreyfus representatives also noted that, as a result of shared and allocated costs among funds in the Dreyfus fund complex, the extent of economies of scale could depend substantially on the level of assets in the complex as a whole, so that increases and decreases in complex-wide assets can affect potential economies of scale in a manner that is disproportionate to, or even in the opposite direction from, changes in the fund’s asset level.The Board also considered potential benefits to Dreyfus from acting as investment adviser and noted that there were no soft dollar arrangements in effect for trading the fund’s investments.

At the conclusion of these discussions, the Board agreed that it had been furnished with sufficient information to make an informed business decision with respect to the renewal of the Agreement. Based on the discussions and considerations as described above, the Board concluded and determined as follows.

• The Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by Dreyfus are adequate and appropriate.

• The Board generally was satisfied with the fund’s relative performance.

• The Board concluded that the fee paid to Dreyfus was reasonable in light of the considerations described above.

• The Board determined that the economies of scale which may accrue to Dreyfus and its affiliates in connection with the management of the fund had been adequately considered by Dreyfus in connection with the fee rate charged to the fund pursuant to the Agreement and that, to the extent in the future it were determined that material economies of scale had not been shared with the fund, the Board would seek to have those economies of scale shared with the fund.

The Fund 21

INFORMATION ABOUT THE RENEWAL OF THE FUND’S
MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT (Unaudited) (continued)

In evaluating the Agreement, the Board considered these conclusions and determinations and also relied on its previous knowledge, gained through meetings and other interactions with Dreyfus and its affiliates, of the fund and the services provided to the fund by Dreyfus.The Board also relied on information received on a routine and regular basis throughout the year relating to the operations of the fund and the investment management and other services provided under the Agreement, including information on the investment performance of the fund in comparison to similar mutual funds and benchmark performance indices; general market outlook as applicable to the fund; and compliance reports. In addition, it should be noted that the Board’s consideration of the contractual fee arrangements for this fund had the benefit of a number of years of reviews of prior or similar agreements during which lengthy discussions took place between the Board and Dreyfus representatives. Certain aspects of the arrangements may receive greater scrutiny in some years than in others, and the Board’s conclusions may be based, in part, on their consideration of the same or similar arrangements in prior years.The Board determined that renewal of the Agreement was in the best interests of the fund and its shareholders.

22